Nature | Comment

Conservation: Stop misuse of biodiversity offsets

Governments should not meet existing conservation targets using the compensation that developers pay for damaging biodiversity, say Martine Maron and colleagues.

Article tools

Robin Hammond/Panos

A 200-kilometre pipeline from a Madagascan mine will result in the loss of biodiverse forest, which the company plans to offset.

Biodiversity offsetting involves trying to compensate for the damage to species and habitats caused by development such as expanding cities, constructing mines and building dams, by creating an 'ecologically equivalent' benefit elsewhere1. For instance, since 2008, the French construction company Oc'via and its partners have invested millions of euros to manage around 1,700 hectares of farmland in southern France to improve the habitat of little bustards (Tetrax tetrax). Why? To compensate for a high-speed rail project that will damage the birds' habitat2.

Interest in offsetting has surged over the past decade (see 'All the rage'). Billions of dollars are spent each year on planning and implementing offsets, and schemes are now under way in nearly 40 countries. As the approach has gained popularity, governments rich and poor have increasingly recognized that industry money generated by offsets can help them to achieve conservation targets to which they have already committed3 — such as those under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Analysis: M.M. et al. Data Source: Google Scholar/Scopus

Yet such a diversion of offsets would be, in effect, an admission of failure. To be valid, an offset must yield conservation benefits that would not otherwise have occurred. Thus, either the offsets are valid but the targets are not truly met, or vice versa.

Three of us (M.M., B.G.M. and J.E.M.W.) are involved in an effort by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to develop guidance and global standards for biodiversity offsetting4. A draft report is expected in October. We think it is crucial that the IUCN provide clear rules on the use of offsetting so that existing international agreements on the protection of biodiversity are not compromised. We also recommend that future international conservation agreements explicitly require separate accounting of protected-area outcomes achieved through offsets.

No net loss

Biodiversity offsetting schemes vary. They can involve removing threats from an existing habitat — by giving an area protected status, say — or restoring habitat, for instance by planting trees. In some cases, offsets are required by law. Australia, for example, often requires developers to offset their impacts on threatened species and native vegetation.

Other offsets are negotiated case by case. Arrangements can be driven by a project's proponents, to generate social licence to operate, or by the lending requirements of funding organizations. For example, an expert panel assembled by the World Bank — which helps to fund large development projects in poor countries — proposed that the Loma Mountains National Park in Sierra Leone be established to offset the damage to forest caused by the completion of the country's Bumbuna dam in 20095.

Most offset schemes aim to achieve 'no net loss' of biodiversity. This does not necessarily mean that biodiversity stops declining, because the goal of an offset is to neutralize only the loss attributable to a particular development6. For instance, QIT Madagascar Minerals (QMM), a subsidiary of multinational mining company Rio Tinto, has committed to protecting at least enough forest to offset the 1,665 hectares of rare littoral forest that will disappear as a result of the operations of its ilmenite (a titanium–iron oxide) mine in Madagascar. In this case, 'no net loss' will mean maintaining the baseline annual rate of forest loss — which QMM estimates to be 0.9% per year7.

Existing commitments

Only biodiversity benefits that are additional to a baseline scenario (what would have happened without the impact or the offset) count as valid offsets. The baseline scenario must reflect both probable future threats and any genuine future intentions to redress those threats. Too many schemes overlook the latter.

Take the commitments made under the CBD. In 2010, the 196 nations that are party to the convention agreed on the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Target 11 is to conserve — through establishing and managing protected areas — at least 17% of the world's terrestrial areas (including inland water) and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020.

“For wealthier nations strict controls should be imposed on the use of funds from biodiversity offsetting.”

Numerous governments are starting to use offsetting schemes to conserve and manage such protected areas. In 2008, for instance, the Australian state of New South Wales set up a fund of around Aus$530 million (US$400 million) to protect threatened woodlands on Sydney's Cumberland Plain to offset the effects on biodiversity of the city's expansion. Both developers and the government contribute to the fund, which is used to buy conservation agreements with landholders, as well as land for new protected areas. Yet no mechanism exists to audit protected areas that are funded in this way separately from other newly protected areas that should count towards Australia's national targets.

Similarly, the Cobre Panama copper-mine project (financed by the mining corporation First Quantum Minerals, among others), is expected to result in the loss of around 5,900 hectares of forest from Central America's Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. This region has one of the highest concentrations of threatened species on Earth. To compensate, the company will contribute to the costs of managing two existing national parks (Santa Fe and Omar Torrijos), and a new protected area to be established nearby8. The Panamanian government can list these national parks when reporting the country's progress towards its previously agreed conservation targets without having to declare the concomitant damage to biodiversity caused by the mine.

Honest accounting

For some developing countries, such as Mozambique, the Aichi and other conservation targets may prove beyond reach9 owing to the needs of a poor and fast-growing population. In such cases, honest withdrawal from such commitments would be understandable; at least this would validate the use of offsets to fund the management of protected areas.

For wealthier nations — where such a withdrawal is harder to defend — strict controls should be imposed on the use of funds from biodiversity offsetting. For instance, in the past few years, the Australian government has started requiring that mining companies and other industries pay millions of dollars into government-managed funds to counterbalance the effects of new port infrastructure on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area10. We argue that this money must be used only for actions to improve water quality beyond that expected for standard protected-area management. Otherwise, the government would be, in effect, withdrawing from its international commitments under the CBD and the World Heritage Convention.

It is reasonable, and often desirable, for offsets to fund new protected areas and their management. But these offset-funded protected areas must be tallied separately — and alongside the losses that trigger them.

A more robust system for ecological accounting is feasible, as demonstrated by REDD+, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change policies for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. REDD+ offers incentives for developing countries to conserve trees and reduce the growth in global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although the details of REDD+ mechanisms and funding are still being developed, the signatories have agreed on the need to establish realistic baseline rates of forest loss from which to calculate emissions reductions (see go.nature.com/gofoch).

With care, offsets can help to reconcile development and conservation. But if they allow governments to renege on their commitments by stealth, biodiversity offsets could cause more harm than good.

Journal name:
Nature
Volume:
523,
Pages:
401–403
Date published:
()
DOI:
doi:10.1038/523401a

References

  1. Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Oryx 47, 369380 (2013).

  2. Aiama D. et al. No Net Loss and Net Positive Impact Approaches for Biodiversity: (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2015); available at http://go.nature.com/gfkgkz

  3. Pilgrim, J. D. & Bennun, L. Conserv. Lett. 7, 423424 (2014).

  4. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Biodiversity Offsets Technical Study Paper (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2014); available at http://go.nature.com/5fcpj1

  5. Kormos, R. et al. PLoS ONE 9, e111671 (2014).

  6. Maron, M., Bull, J. W., Evans, M. C. & Gordon, A. Biol. Conserv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.017 (2015).

  7. Temple, H. J. et al. Forecasting the Path Towards a Net Positive Impact on Biodiversity for Rio Tinto QMM (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2012); available at http://go.nature.com/29puf2

  8. The Biodiversity Consultancy. Independent Report on Biodiversity Offsets (International Union for Conservation of Nature, International Council on Mining and Metals, 2012); available at http://go.nature.com/jxrht9

  9. Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. Nature 515, 6773 (2014).

  10. Bos, M., Pressey, R. L. & Stoeckl, N. Environ. Sci. Policy 42, 115 (2014).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Martine Maron is associate professor in environmental management and an Australian Research Council future fellow in the School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

  2. Ascelin Gordon is a vice-chancellor's senior research fellow in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies at RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria.

  3. Brendan G. Mackey is director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program at Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

  4. Hugh P. Possingham is an Australian Research Council laureate fellow at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and professor of conservation decisions at Imperial College London, UK.

  5. James E. M. Watson is associate professor of environmental management at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and director of the Science and Research Initiative at the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

3 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for Martine Maron
    Martine Maron
    In addition to the comment below, I would like to draw the attention of those interested in this article to two pieces of related Correspondence published in recent months: one by Kiesecker et al. entitled "Factor failure into protected areas" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7567/full/525033c.html and another by Hardner et al. "Conservation served by flexibility" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7566/full/524415e.html. We have posted replies in the Comment thread beneath each, and we'd welcome ongoing discussion and debate.
  2. Avatar for Leon Bennun
    Leon Bennun
    Thanks to Maron et al. for raising these important issues. They propose that protected areas supported through biodiversity offsets should not count towards achieving Aichi Target 11, lest Governments ‘renege on their commitments by stealth’. However, offsets are a ‘cap and trade’ mechanism, using spatial variation in the opportunity costs of conservation to achieve an overall policy aim – e.g., no net loss of biodiversity – alongside managed development. In the context of Target 11, offsets offer potential to conserve priority sites so as to consolidate, expand and connect national protected areas networks. Before the Aichi targets were agreed, CBD Parties had identified offsets as a mechanism to generate new domestic resources for Convention implementation [UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/11 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-09/cop-09-dec-11-en.pdf]. Governments could reasonably argue that their commitment to Target 11 was contingent on the use of offsetting where appropriate. With this perspective, funding from offsets is no different to funding from general tax revenues – which themselves are often generated from environmentally damaging activities. Importantly, however, Target 11 should not be achieved at the expense of other Aichi Targets, including Target 5 which commits Parties to halve (and where feasible bring close to zero) the rate of loss of all natural habitats. Achieving Target 5 by no means rules out the use of biodiversity offsets, but may set limits to their application. Offset investment in protected areas should thus count towards achieving Target 11. However, to qualify as an offset such investment must pass the test of additionality – achieving conservation gains that would not have resulted otherwise. Clearly, funding is not additional where it displaces – rather than supplements – current or future investment committed to conservation [Pilgrim, J. D. & Bennun, L. Conservation Letters 7:423-424 (2014). DOI: 10.1111/conl.12145]. This, not Target 11, should be the focus of concern.
  3. Avatar for Martine Maron
    Martine Maron
    Thank you, Leon, for this important comment. It is true that if the commitments to protected areas under Aichi Target 11 were contingent on equivalent losses in order to fund those protected areas, then the consistency-related (although not the environmental!) problems of using offsets to achieve the Target would be largely overcome. The question, then, is: Do participating nations view the commitment to the Target as being contingent on offsets, and where they do, is this openly and transparently acknowledged? We expand a little on this issue in Maron in press: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12222/abstract. The point you raise underscores our call for future agreements to be explicit about the role of offsets and account separately for conservation gains made possible only by equivalent losses.
sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.